Abstract
A widely held dogma in the preclinical addiction field is that females are more vulnerable than males to drug craving and relapse. Here, we first review clinical studies on sex differences in psychostimulant and opioid craving and relapse. Next, we review preclinical studies on sex differences in psychostimulant and opioid reinstatement of drug seeking after extinction of drug self-administration and incubation of drug craving (time-dependent increase in drug seeking during abstinence). We also discuss ovarian hormones’ role in relapse and craving in humans and animal models and speculate on brain mechanisms underlying their role in cocaine craving and relapse in rodent models. Finally, we discuss imaging studies on brain responses to cocaine cues and stress in men and women.
The results of the clinical studies reviewed do not appear to support the notion that women are more vulnerable to psychostimulant and opioid craving and relapse. However, this conclusion is tentative because most of the studies reviewed were correlational, not sufficiently powered, and/or not a priori designed to detect sex differences. Additionally, fMRI studies suggest sex differences in brain responses to cocaine cues and stress. The results of the preclinical studies reviewed provide evidence for sex differences in stress-induced reinstatement and incubation of cocaine craving, but not cue- or cocaine priming-induced reinstatement of cocaine seeking. These sex differences are modulated in part by ovarian hormones. In contrast, the available data do not support the notion of sex differences in craving and relapse/reinstatement for methamphetamine or heroin in rodent models.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The authors declare that they do not have any conflicts of interest (financial or otherwise) related to the text of the paper. The write-up of the review was supported by funds to the NIDA Intramural Research Program (YS, LL, MF, and SI), NIAAA Division of Intramural Clinical and Biological Research (LL, MF), NIDA grant K99 DA047419 (NEZ), and Fondation pour la recherche medicale fellowship (CN).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
N/A
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Author’s contributions: CN, NEZ, MF, LL, SI, and YS wrote the manuscript.
Funding and Disclosure: The authors declare that they do not have any conflicts of interest (financial or otherwise) related to the text of the paper. The write-up of the review was supported by funds to the NIDA Intramural Research Program (YS, LL, MF, and SI), NIAAA Division of Intramural Clinical and Biological Research (LL, MF), NIDA grant K99 DA047419 (NEZ), and Fondation pour la recherche médicale fellowship (CN).
Data Availability
N/A
